In 2005, for example, managers at East Hartfords L Building heard 140 operator complaints of bad odors related to the facilitys metalworking fluid. These grievances usually were handled by immediately dumping the coolant and refilling the machine sumps with fresh fluid. L Building could open a drum of soluble oil concentrate, make it up for service – and throw it away only two weeks later. That year it churned through 140 drums of coolant concentrate.

L Buildings CAN Module Center makes combustors, augmenters and nozzles for jet engines, including the F119 engine for the U.S. Air Force F22 Raptor, and the F135 engine that propels the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. Four years ago, with 75 machine tools to keep running, L Building was dumping bad coolant so frequently that it had three full-time employees whose principal job was to pump out and refill the machine tool reservoirs, recalled Milton Hoff, vice president of strategic technology development at Master Chemical Corp. in Perrysburg, Ohio. Speaking in May to the annual meeting of the Society of Tribologists & Lubrication Engineers, Hoff described how a comprehensive and disciplined approach to its coolants made L Building a model that other Pratt & Whitney plants now hope to copy.

Before its turnaround, Hoff said, you could walk in the door at L Building, and the odor was so bad it would make you want to walk right out again. And with all that flushing, coolant waste volumes were enormous; in 2005, the facility had to dispose of 900,000 pounds at a cost of 5 cents a pound.

Thats when Pratt & Whitney realized that they needed to maintain the fluid process the same way they maintain their manufacturing process, Hoff said.

This was not the first attempt to manage fluid at Pratt & Whitney, he added, and past failures had left operators skeptical, after being let down so many times. Managers and workers alike felt bitten by the piecemeal programs du jour that promised more than they delivered, said Hoff. This time would be different, however, because it would be an all-out effort led by an agent of change: David Antinore, Pratt & Whitneys specialist, indirect materials and processes, was given the mandate to bring the fluid under control.

Antinore began by establishing ambitious goals: Cut waste by 98 percent, reduce fluid consumption, put an end to the odors – and keep going even if immediate success did not come. From a glance at Hamilton Sundstrand, which had gone 14 years without throwing coolant away, it was obvious that L Building would have to be persistent in its efforts and keep a long-term view.

Benchmarking against Hamilton Sundstrand also showed where specific improvements could be made. For example, in its program Hamilton Sundstrand had gone from 1 million pounds of liquid waste a year to just 30,000 pounds, an astonishing 97 percent reduction. It had reduced the labor needed to maintain its coolants from six workers to just three. And it was saving more than $300,000 a year in new coolant purchases.

Antinore proceeded to build a team of experts that included Haas TMC, the plants chemical management service provider, and fluid specialist Master Chemical Corp., which had participated in Hamilton Sundstrands success. Also aboard were experts from MSC Filtration Technologies, to work on fluid purity. Under Antinore, the team tore into every factor that might improve its results:

The fluid. The company had been using a soluble oil cutting fluid. Now it switched to a Master Chemical Trim-brand soluble oil emulsion designed for heavy-duty machining and creep-feed grinding of aircraft alloys. Importantly, the chlorine-free and low-foaming fluid met Pratt & Whitneys stringent PMC 9390 specification for use on all metals, and was recyclable with conventional equipment.

Recycling equipment. MSC Filtration of Enfield, Conn., designed and supplied a new filtration system to keep the coolant free of degrading contaminants. MSCs Barry LaFoe, who coauthored the STLE paper with Hoff, recommended coalescing filters which were arrayed in a series of increasingly fine settings, down to 5 or 10 micron particle size.

Sump modifications. L Buildings machine systems themselves were one of the obstacles to maintaining the fluid. They had large, shallow sumps which were hard to clean. Their shallowness also made it difficult to draw out tramp oil, Hoff said, because you couldnt use simple belt skimmers. There was a lot of tramp oil, especially from leaky older machines that sent a fair amount of hydraulic fluid into the coolant sumps. Pratt invested in rebuilding many of the machine reservoirs with an eye to easier maintenance, and added top-off stations where needed.

Training of machine operators, managers and coolant technicians. These sessions covered fluid chemistries, testing techniques, the recycling equipment and how the systems worked together. You have to train, train, train, Hoff remarked. For our first training session, only three people showed up, but success breeds success, and more participants joined in as good results began to come in. Soon, the classes were jammed.

Monitoring of coolant condition and concentration, and scheduled sump recycling. Initially L Building worked towards reaching a 28-day cycle for its coolant, then built it up from there. The monitoring goal was to keep the fluid as close to its original parameters as possible.

Even with this multipronged attack, not every improvement was immediate or sustained. Things happen, Hoff said realistically. When seasoned workers left or were out on vacation, the fluid concentration levels might be neglected, so they went out of control and problems reappeared. But such set-backs werent allowed to derail the effort. In those cases, we got back to training the operators, showing why theyre hurting themselves. You have to reinforce, set goals – and dont panic when something goes wrong.

Today, L Building at Pratt & Whitney has not quite reached the goals set in 2005, but it has greatly narrowed the gap. From 900,000 pounds of waste coolant in 2005, it sent out just 100,000 pounds in 2008. It expects to see a further reduction to just 40,000 pounds this year. After hearing 140 complaints about odor four years ago, it now has zero. Operations are very pleased, theres basically no odor now, stated Hoff.

The crew count in coolant management also reflects the improvement. Although it now has 90 machines to manage, L Building needs only one person (instead of three) to maintain the coolant by himself.

The fluid improvements helped boost machine tool efficiency as well. Pratts machinists in L Building had a longtime habit of changing tools at a set number of cuts, explained Hoff. The coolant team showed them how Hamilton Sundstrand had greatly added to tool life by monitoring and maintaining its coolants. By applying those lessons, L Building expects to save $2 million to $3 million in tooling purchases. Significant gains have been made in machine up-time, as well.

Purchases of coolant have come down dramatically too, since spoilage and waste are not factors. The plants consumption of 140 barrels of concentrate in 2005 fell to just 45 barrels in 2008. Thats a 68 percent reduction in volume, and it also allowed lower inventory levels and reduced storage needs.

Direct costs of the program included $80,000 to buy skimmers and equipment, plus $100,000 that was spent to modify tools, rip out sumps and rebuild them. The payback came quickly. In its first year, L Building saved $200,000 a year in coolant crew costs, $50,000 in coolant purchases, and $75,000 in waste disposal, hauling and management costs. In the first year of use, a total savings of $325,000 was seen, which is $145,000 greater than the investment. This translates into a return on investment of 181 percent, Hoff calculated.

The next building over in East Hartford is now clamoring for it – they arent needing to be pushed, he said in closing. Unfortunately, the economic slowdown has slowed that plan. With up-front costs of $180,000, its a hard time to get appropriations, he conceded.

Hoffs still hopeful that as the economy warms up, the successful program will expand further into Pratt & Whitney – and from there into other divisions of United Technologies Corp.